More than a bargaining chip
On Dec. 11, US president-elect Donald Trump said: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy.”
US President Barack Obama answered his question on Dec. 16 during his year-end news conference.
“The idea of ‘one China’ is at the heart of their conception as a nation and so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through the consequences because the Chinese will not treat that the way they will treat some other issues,” Obama said.
“That ‘status quo,’ although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and a people who have a high degree of self-determination. The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they are able to continue to function with some agree of autonomy, that they won’t charge forward and declare independence,” Obama said.
Obama urged his successor to beware of provoking a “very significant” response from Beijing over Taiwan.
Is it true that Taiwanese have agreed to be stateless? Is it fair and good advice as a world leader?
Let us take a close look at history. The “one China” policy was first mentioned on Feb. 28, 1972, by then-US president Richard Nixon and then-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東), who reached an agreement and published the Shanghai communique. It said that the Chinese government firmly opposes any activities aimed at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan,” “one China, two governments,” “two Chinas,” and an “independent Taiwan,” or that advocate “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined.”
The US acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The US does not challenge that position. Yes, it has acknowledged Chinese greed and clearly separated Taiwanese from Chinese. Of course Taiwan is not part of China.
On Oct. 1, 1949, after Mao announced the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), there were two Chinas — one led by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who lost the Chinese Civil War and escaped to Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC).
Technically there was only one nation in Chinese territory — the PRC. However, the ROC claimed it was the sole official government representing all of China in the international community until Oct. 25, 1971, when the ROC was expelled from the UN and was replaced by the PRC under UN Resolution 2758. Since then there has been only one China — the PRC.
However, in 1972 when Nixon visited Beijing the ROC was still the official government representing China at the UN and was recognized by the US. The “one China” spoken of at that time was the ROC.
Then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger said it would take years for all Chinese on either side of Taiwan Strait to merge into one China. Even if they merged, there is still no such country as “one China,” and the Taiwan-US status determined at the end of World War II says that Taiwan does not belong to China.
The world has changed dramatically since the party feud between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP, who have since shaken hands, toasted each other and now plan to jointly rule Taiwan.
What confuses to the world is the Chiang followers who continuously call themselves a Chinese government, while the world took them for a Taiwanese government. Even the US officially derecognized the ROC and recognized it as the Taiwanese governing authority in Jan. 1, 1979, under the Taiwan Relations Act.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) recently reminded the PRC to pay attention to the existence of the ROC, because her official title is ROC president.
Fortunately, Trump reminded her she was elected by Taiwanese voters and her title should be Taiwanese president. Yes, the Taiwanese president represents only Taiwan and has nothing to do with China, but when Taiwan calls itself the ROC, it is trapped in the Chinese arena and the PRC immediately claims ownership.
Maybe that is why after China’s concerns and warnings over Tsai’s telephone call to Trump, he said: “I fully understand the ‘one China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”
It sounds like Taiwan is a bargaining chip for the US to get whatever price it wants from China.
Is it? Or is it because Taiwan continues to identify itself as the ROC?
Well, the Taiwan-US relationship is more than just a bargaining chip. According to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the US military is the authorized principal occupying power of Japanese nationals, Taiwan.
On Feb. 5, 2009, US Appeals Court Judge Janice Brown questioned Melissa Patterson, an attorney working on behalf of the US government, in the case Lin versus USA lawsuit.
“What is the government’s position on the status of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, particularly the language that the US is the principal occupying power? Is that good law?” Brown asked.
“If, in fact, the treaty, that language of treaty creates the United States as the de jure sovereign, can the United States walk away from that treaty? I don’t think they can,” Patterson said.
“If a treaty is established that the United States is the de jure sovereign, would the executive unilaterally change that?” Brown asked.
“Let me help you, the answer is no,” Patterson said.
“What’s different here is if the language of the treaty supports what counsel said. If, in fact, the language principal occupying power means that the United States is the de jure sovereign, you’re in trouble,” Brown said.
“You’re in trouble,” Patterson said.
The US has enough experience since the Spanish-American War in dealing with the insular issues of peace treaties.
Taiwan’s status is more or less similar to that of Cuba.
Maybe the time is coming. Trump has recruited a lot of military personnel in his Cabinet. Is is about time that Taiwan’s status was settled; it has been overdue since the end of World War II. Taiwan is more than a bargaining chip to the US under a “one China” policy.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
Philippine Coast Guard spokesman Jay Tarriela on March 1 was promoted from commodore to rear admiral from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The promotion is a striking testament to how Beijing’s intimidation tactics on its current main target in the South China Sea have backfired. It is also yet another example that Taiwan can look to when it comes to responding to Chinese scare campaigns. Tarriela has been consistent in his approach since Manila launched its transparency initiative in early 2023 to counter Chinese “gray zone” tactics around its western waters. As the face of the West Philippine Sea Transparency Office,
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.
RSS